What is the REAL statistic?

[JamesMama]

For males that need to be circ'ed later in life?

I know it's fairly subjective and it's sort of like asking 'How many women need c-sections?' when we have a 33% c-section rate. But just ballpark figures, please...kwim?

The reason I ask is because DH's grandfather was circ'ed later in life and that is why is family is so rabidly pro-circ. AFAIK his brothers are un'circed and weren't circ'ed later in life, but ya know what they say about when you BECOME that 1% right?

So to rebut their "Oh he'll need it later in life!" argument with Emmett (not that I care one way or the other but it helps to have some facts once in a while). What is the actual statistic about it needing done later in life?

[bandgeek]

In THIS country, the rate will be higher than it should due to bad info and cut-happy docs. In some OTHER countries, I hear it's much, much less than 1%. 1 in 20,000 or something? I mean really, even with severe phimosis, you don't NEED a circ. You can stretch, do creams, and at the worst, have a slit cut so you can retract. I think I've heard people on here say the only real reasons are cancer, gangrene, or frostbite ON the foreskin would indicate it. And maybe if a brown recluse bit it and your flesh started rotting away from the poison. Or an accident that caused mutilation to that body part and it was beyond repair. How often does that stuff happen?

MOST later in life circs are because of "phimosis", related non-issues like ballooning or spraying, or infections (real or not) ALL of which do not need circ to fix them (some don't need fixed at all).

Sorry your folks are so negative. You know you are right though. And good grief, even if he DID need it later, at least it would be with proper pain relief before AND after the surgery AND he'd probably be old enough to understand what was going on.

[Fellow Traveler]

Unfortunately, it's difficult to say because those figures aren't really kept. It depends largely on the competence of the doctors who treat the boy. In the US it is almost certainly higher than it should be. But in reality 1% is a large over estimate. I'd say closer to 1 in 1000.

[JamesMama]

I figured 1% was over...just a saying around here I guess...people say "Well such-and-such only happens to *some small number*% of people" and they say "Yeah, when you become that *some small number*% it's 100%" or something like that.

1 in 1000, I can pass that on

[glongley]

Here is a great article on all the reasons why a doc might say a boy "needs" to be circumcised and why it's almost never true. Gives you an idea where America's inflated statistics (and myth-based concerns) about a boy "having to be circumcised later on" came from.

http://www.mothering.com/health/prot...advice-parents

[JamesMama]

I'm figuring there was lots of forced retraction, poor cleaning and goodness only knows what else contributed to it. But they are still insanely pro-circ and my GMIL actually threatened to take Emmett and have him circ'ed with or without us.

Our older DS is circ'ed

[eclipse]

My argument would be that *if* my son was one of the few people (or even if there was a 99% chance that he WOULD need it later in life), he would have spent his whole life up to that point with his whole body. I mean, if I was clairvoyant and knew that when my son was 70, he'd need his hand amputated, I wouldn't lop it off in infancy.

[AahRee]

Originally Posted by JamesMama

my GMIL actually threatened to take Emmett and have him circ'ed with or without us.

And that's all I have to say about that!

(((HUGS)))

[DocsNemesis]

Didn't they used to tell parents to retract at every diaper change and clean? And wouldn't that lead to potential scarring and issues later on as well?

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by DocsNemesis

Didn't they used to tell parents to retract at every diaper change and clean? And wouldn't that lead to potential scarring and issues later on as well?

Yes and yes

I have read in Finland where circumcision is rare the figure is something like 1 in 16,000. Trying to find a link to that.

Edit: it's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision Scroll down to the Europe section.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by JamesMama

For males that need to be circ'ed later in life?

I know it's fairly subjective and it's sort of like asking 'How many women need c-sections?' when we have a 33% c-section rate. But just ballpark figures, please...kwim?

The reason I ask is because DH's grandfather was circ'ed later in life and that is why is family is so rabidly pro-circ. AFAIK his brothers are un'circed and weren't circ'ed later in life, but ya know what they say about when you BECOME that 1% right?

So to rebut their "Oh he'll need it later in life!" argument with Emmett (not that I care one way or the other but it helps to have some facts once in a while). What is the actual statistic about it needing done later in life?

While it is reasonable to track this statistic, please remember that even if the number were large, it alone does not make a good case for RIC. You have to weigh the potential benefits against the negative consequences. Many people let one small advantage outweigh all the major negative consequences in their mind, and then make bad choices.

Using this fear of potential problems in the future is really a poor way to justify it. In fact, I would use the same argument in reverse, that it is much much better to wait: The person is older and can understand why you are causing the pain, he is fully developed, so the operation is more predictable, so less chance of complications, and he can make his own decision, so no violation of human rights. It is always better in my mind to do it when he is older. No question.

Regards

[nettlesoup]

I don't know about statistics or anything, but here in the UK very few people are circumcised. I think it only happens for religious reasons, or on a rare occasion when it's required due to a problem. I find it so strange that so many people get it done in the US. I've never even seen a circ'd man in real life before! I guess it shows that it's generally unnecessary.

[Greg B]

I forgot to add one other point. Keep in mind that arguing over whether RIC is preferable to a circ later in life assumes that a circ is the best choice to make. It is an argument about when, rather than if. First you should have the if argument, to circ or not. Then argue about when is best.

Regards

[JamesMama]

DH and I have already decided against it, I just like to have some ammo to throw at his family when they start freaking out on us.

GFIL always says he'd rather have gotten it done as a newborn when he wouldn't remember the pain.

I typically just ignore them but sometimes I like to throw facts at them to 1) make them think and hopefully save some of DH's future nephews/2nd cousins (I failed with his cousins baby) and 2) Shut them up for a week or 2...

[phatchristy]

I read a while back it was about 1 in 17,000 in non-circing countries. In general, if a boy grows up with his foreskin he is going to want to keep it. The intact men I've met are rather disturbed when people have made references to them being circumcised. In fact I met one once who had an ignorant doctor suggest it 'routinely' to him during a physical that if he wanted it done they could get insurance to cover it. The doctor basically assumed (likely circ'd himself I'd guess) that he would want to be.

I find that just horrendous personally...just imagine the shocks if a woman had suggested at a physical to voluntarily remove some of her most sensitive sexual tissue for no reason. OMG. Just shocking. It's crazy that this sort of 'just a flap of skin' thinking still exists in this country, people are just so flat out ignorant.

In fact, I had a friend in one of my bf groups who noticed that DS is intact. When I began talking to her about it, she automatically said that she 'didn't want to know anymore'. She explained she had a boy already and her husband wanted it done. She did not, and she basically told me "I know it's wrong, I just don't want to hear anymore'.

Some people don't want to know because once you know the truth you are emotionally obligated to do the right thing. And, if you don't you will live with that regret for the rest of your life. Which is heartbreaking for me, because they are adults...they should be able to handle the 'emotional battles' and 'interpersonal social struggles' they perceive are going to happen if they don't circ. Yet, they don't want to deal and would rather let their DS be harmed and then pass the burden onto another generation.

[Bm31]

Originally Posted by JamesMama

GFIL always says he'd rather have gotten it done as a newborn when he wouldn't remember the pain.

This always gets to me, when I hear of the rare grown man (funny it's usually online, haven't run into one personally in real life) that says this. I had to have a re-circ at age six thanks to a botched circ as an infant. I certainly would rather NOT remember that, but you know what? I got through it better (pain-wise that is, the results of the re-circ were just a further botch job on my penis), apparently better than some of these adult men with their dramatics. From my perspective, I'd rather NOT gotten it done as a newborn which caused the problems.

And make no mistake about it, recirc's are very common still. I think esp. so in the high circ. midwest (right next door to you in Ill.). Among co-workers alone I know one who's grandson was re-done at 5, and another who's son was re-done at 10. It's safe to assume they remember having to go through that. The Canadian Paediatric Society http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/preg...rcumcision.htm gives a figure of 10 out of 1,000 will be re-circ'd, exactly the same as the number of intact that will need later circ's. So, circ'ing is just as likely to set them up for something they won't want to remember later.

[Ron_Low]

The rate is 1 in 10,000.

Most cases where circumcision is used in the US should have been ignored, or resolved with gentle stretching, or - if impatience provokes surgical remedies - solved with "dorsal slit with transverse closure" which loosens the foreskin but amputates no sensual tissue.

The one valid indication for circumcision is an adult affliction called LS/BXO (Lichen Sclerosis/Balanitis Xerotica Obliterens) which affects one in 3000 adult men or women. The prepuce gets hardened and scarred and scratches at the mucosa it covers. Relief comes for 2/3 of these cases from using Protopic ointment. The remainder will need a partial or full foreskin or clitoral hood amputation.

1 in 10,000.

[bubbamummy]

Originally Posted by nettlesoup

I don't know about statistics or anything, but here in the UK very few people are circumcised. I think it only happens for religious reasons, or on a rare occasion when it's required due to a problem. I find it so strange that so many people get it done in the US. I've never even seen a circ'd man in real life before! I guess it shows that it's generally unnecessary.

yeah im from the UK and met my American husband and when I 1st saw his penis I said 'OMG....whats wrong with it' didnt go down too well

I had never heard of it being done except for in the jewish comminity. I was shocked to find its 'normal' in the US.

[dogretro]

Originally Posted by eclipse

My argument would be that *if* my son was one of the few people (or even if there was a 99% chance that he WOULD need it later in life), he would have spent his whole life up to that point with his whole body. I mean, if I was clairvoyant and knew that when my son was 70, he'd need his hand amputated, I wouldn't lop it off in infancy.

THAT is a GREAT argument! Yanno, my daughter may develop breast cancer one day. Does that mean I should have the dr remove her breast tissue now before it develops into a problem? Because cancer recovery has to be WAY more painful than circumcision recovery.

[Quirky]

Originally Posted by Ron_Low

The rate is 1 in 10,000.

Most cases where circumcision is used in the US should have been ignored, or resolved with gentle stretching, or - if impatience provokes surgical remedies - solved with "dorsal slit with transverse closure" which loosens the foreskin but amputates no sensual tissue.

The one valid indication for circumcision is an adult affliction called LS/BXO (Lichen Sclerosis/Balanitis Xerotica Obliterens) which affects one in 3000 adult men or women. The prepuce gets hardened and scarred and scratches at the mucosa it covers. Relief comes for 2/3 of these cases from using Protopic ointment. The remainder will need a partial or full foreskin or clitoral hood amputation.

1 in 10,000.

Apparently BXO can affect children as well. An acquaintance on another board is having to have her son circed because of BXO -- I don't think he's even a teen yet, although he certainly isn't a little child. She's consulted with Marilyn Milos, tried everything short of circ, to no avail. So circ truly is necessary. But still, BXO is pretty darned rare.